ArticleBMC nephrology2026
First assessment of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) among French people with chronic kidney disease.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial deprivation limits access to the kidney transplant waiting list. Possible mediators of this association could be health literacy (HL) and eHealth literacy (e-HL) levels. Digital health interventions have been developed to improve patient health information and education. Their development should be based on the e-HL level of the target population to meet their health needs. A tool is needed to measure the e-HL of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of this study was to assess the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) in a French population with CKD.
methodsPatients with CKD were recruited from January to March 2023 to complete the eHLQ. Three other questionnaires were completed to assess HL and dependence in daily life. The analysis included item assessment, scale reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
resultsA total of 371 patients completed the questionnaire. The analysis suggested a different structure, as the 4-factor EFA was the most meaningful and appropriate. The internal consistency was adequate for each scale. The highest score was obtained for scale 4, "Feel safe and in control" and the lowest for scale 1, "Using technology to process health information".
conclusionsOur study suggests that a division of the eHLQ into 4 scales should better reflect e-HL among French patients with CKD. The eHLQ should be modified to improve its construct validity. A validated tool to evaluate e-HL in the population with CKD is essential to improve health equity in access to health education and healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.